Reinventing The Theory of the Hoax

For quite some time, we have believed that the keys to understanding and exposing the Hoax would be found in the words of interim District Attorney Mike Nifong. Unlike many of the other less practiced actors in this absurd performance, he deceives with a verbal precision that has allowed him to hijack this Hoax for his own benefit. With this in mind we have compiled, catalogued, inspected, analyzed and mocked many of the public statements he has made throughout his persecution of the innocent Duke Three.

.

It is, of course, far easier to identify the fallacies and inconsistencies in the descriptions given by the accuser, Ms. Roberts, Sgt. Gottlieb, Inv. Himan and Linwood Wilson who each appear to either not be as skilled in deception as Nifong, or seem to be themselves manipulated into participation in the Hoax. The accuser’s inconsistent statements that self-contradict, her fantastical accounts that are belied by physical and scientific evidence (or lack thereof) and her transparent motive for initiating the hoax all speak for themselves as statements that wilt quickly in the light of truth. Ms. Roberts' flip-flop-flipping also self-contradicts, while simultaneously diverging from the statements of the accuser and the theories of the District Attorney. Sgt. Gottlieb’s mysterious fill-in-the-blank notes contradict his “investigative” actions, oppose the words of his fellow officers, and defy the reports of others, like Nurse Levicy, that he attempts to speak for. Himan’s affidavits have been revealed to contain distortion, disguise and outright falsehoods if not first handedly, then, at the very least, second-handedly. Linwood Wilson, Nifong’s apparent personal thug, personifies deception, and has demonstrated a willingness to contradict anything, if it serves his master to do so.

While the less skilled deceivers struggle to disguise their deception and are easily outed, Mr. Nifong blatantly perpetuates this fraudulent Hoax by spewing Nifongese at every turn. For quite some time, Mr. Nifong has led many people to believe that he had justification for bringing indictments and pressing this Hoax to trial. Under the guise of “the accuser deserves her day in court”, or “he must have something,” Mr. Nifong manages to continue this horrifyingly offensive farce.

It has become quite clear to us that this Hoax is not about an accuser’s day in court, but rather about Nifong’s day in court. Prosecution has apparently become a game to Mr. Nifong, rather than a pursuit of truth or justice. He demonstrates that he cares nothing for the facts of the case as he puts forth theories that contradict the complainant’s description of events, the evidence as it has been revealed, the statements and actions of the police investigators, and even the sworn statements of his own Assistant District Attorney David Saacks.

With skilled gamesmanship and the nerve of a con man, DA Nifong blatantly chides the media, the defense attorneys and the accused as he points his finger in every direction except his own while employing the “something” he has. What he has, folks, is nothing more than Nifongese, crafty language precisely delivered to disguise, distort, delayand deceive. With willful disregard for the truth, and with no inhibition of contradicting either the previous accounts of the Hoax, or evidence already made known, Mr. Nifong obnoxiously declared his intention of re-inventing the Theory of the Hoax that was initially presented both publicly and before the Grand Jury.

The initial Theory of the Hoax, as put forth by the principle facilitators listed above, spoke of a brutal 30 minute gang rape, yet now Mr. Nifong appears to have crafted an alternative version of events. His new Theory of the Hoax, the 5 minute version, appears to be what he will present when he realizes his day in court. Previously he has interjected his own, non-supported by truth, variations of the hoax theme by offering public suggestions of condom use, long sleeves, strangulation demonstrations, date rape drugs and conspiracies of silence. He has supported his push for his day in court by commandeering the investigation, implementing staged identification procedures, and inflaming public passions with shouts of hate crimes, while pretending that he intended to bring forth a case based on yet to be revealed “evidence” and his conviction that he believed the accuser.

Folks, it’s clear to us that this menace to justice is far too intelligent to believe that a crime occurred. He has demonstrated, as well, that he is far too callous to care that one did not occur. The game is far too important to him. He refuses to be slowed, let alone stopped, by “trivial” concerns such as truth, justice, facts or evidence. He previously demonstrated his lack of belief in the accuser by embellishing the additional details in the variations of the hoax mentioned above, and revealed his lack of trust in her by staging the phony lineup. Now, he again demonstrates his lack of belief in her words by abandoning the version of the hoax that was presented to the grand jury in order to secure indictments. While the totality of the song and dance given by the duet of Himan and Gottlieb is not yet, and may never be, known, it is quite clear to us that the version of the hoax given to the Grand Jury will not be the same version presented to the jury at trial. Inspection of Himan’s pre-Grand Jury and post-Grand Jury affidavits reveals that the Grand Jury was very likely not presented with a theory of the hoax that included a 5 minute attack, nor one in which the accuser was assaulted with an object or objects.

The March 16 affidavit signed by Inv. Himan describes the duration of the alleged crime as follows:

“The victim reported she was sexually assaulted for an approximate 30 minute time period by the three males.”

The attack is sworn by Himan to have included:

1. Separation from Kim Roberts.

2. Two men pulling the accuser into a bathroom.

3. Someone closing the bathroom door.

4. Someone stating, “Sweetheart you can’t leave.”

5. An attempt by the accuser to exit the bathroom.

6. Three males forcibly holding her legs and arms.

7. The accuser being hit, kicked and strangled.

8. The accuser attempting to defend herself.

9. The accuser being overpowered.

10. The accuser being sexually assaulted anally, vaginally and orally for 30 minutes.

The search warrant to which this affidavit is attached alleges the following crimes to have been committed during the course of the 30 minute attack:

1. First degree forcible rape

2. First degree forcible sexual offense

3. Common Law Robbery

4. Felonious Strangulation

The items listed to be searched for and the list of the items seized do not include any item, which by even the most deviant stretch of imagination could be construed as an object by which the accuser could have been assaulted.

Two April 18 affidavits signed by Inv. Himan describe the duration of the alleged crime exactly as the March 16 affidavit did:

“The victim reported she was sexually assaulted for an approximate 30 minute time period by the three males.”

The attack is sworn by Himan to have included the same 10 occurrences as in his March 16 affidavit, and now also includes rape in addition to sexual assault and two other events.

1. Separation from Kim Roberts.

2. Two men pulling the accuser into a bathroom.

3. Someone closing the bathroom door.

4. Someone stating, “Sweetheart you can’t leave.”

5. An attempt by the accuser to exit the bathroom.

6. Three males forcibly holding her legs and arms.

7. The accuser being hit, kicked and strangled.

8. The accuser attempting to defend herself.

9. The accuser being overpowered.

10. The accuser being raped and sexually assaulted anally, vaginally and orally for 30 minutes.

11. The accuser clawed at one suspect’s arm while struggling to breath and in the process broke 4 artificial finger nails.

12. The accuser was robbed of $400.00 immediately after the rape.

The items listed to be searched for and seized again do not include any items, which by even the most deviant stretch of imagination could be construed as objects by which the accuser could have been assaulted, nor does the description of the 30 minute event include details of such an occurrence.

Considering that the affidavits by Himan before and after he appeared at the Grand Jury as a witness describe the 30 minute event, it appears that the Grand Jury was presented with a version of events that contradicts Mr. Nifong’s recent assertion in court that the hoaxed assault endured for as briefly as 5 minutes. It appears that the 5 minute theory was born sometime after the Grand Jury brought indictments.

This radical change in presentation at the very least calls into question this June 17 statement of Mr. Nifong:

“None of the "facts," indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially"

By his own admission, Nifong‘s opinion of what occurred has not changed based on the "facts" nor, indeed, the evidence. If not the facts or the evidence, then what would this drastic change be based upon? Why has his opinion of what "occured" changed and why has the theory based on that opinion changed so drastically from what initially was alleged both in public, to the television cameras, and in private, to the Grand Jury?

The obvious answer is that the Theory has changed because the original Theory did not fit the facts as they were revealed. Despite his protestations to the contrary, it can only be because the facts and evidence revealed the original Theory to be false, that it became necessary for Mr. Nifong to develop alternate Theories. While most every other prosecutor, we hope, would take facts and evidence that reveal an allegation to be false as a cause to drop a case in the interests of justice, Mr. Nifong instead sees a challenge in having to bend a Theory to fit the facts. Necessity again became the mother of invention. Rather than allow facts and evidence that disproves the original Theory of the Case to stop him, Mr. Nifong refuses to admit his mistakes, and attempts desperately to save face rather than to protect justice.

Fortunately, no matter how cunningly skillful his Nifongese may appear to be, the truth will only bend so far, and not everyone is willing to be duped. It is frighteningly ironic that his apologists have argued continually that he must have something, and have waited so patiently for their hero to reward their misplaced faith with some item of evidence or fact. Instead, it appears they have been reward by nothing more than words. Words that again, it seems, are based not on any substantiation, but rather on Nifong’s imagination.